Chaya Wd/O. Durgesh Katre vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Chaya Wd/O. Durgesh Katre vs Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: CEO's order dated 16.11.2023 and Divisional Commissioner's order dated 16.02.2024 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to CEO, Zilla Parishad, Gondia to hear the petitioner and respondents and pass a fresh order within two months; petition disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the CEO's order dated 16.11.2023, passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, offended natural justice for want of an opportunity of hearing at the stage when the appointment was issued in favour of the incumbent-employee. +1 more

Court's answer

Although there was no dispute with the Apex Court's proposition in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, when the appointment was issued in favour of the incumbent-employee the respondent-CEO was bound to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing; this not having been done, the Authority did not follow the principle of natural justice.

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back to the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, to hear the petitioner and the respondents and pass a fresh order within a period of two months; in view thereof the petition stands disposed of.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Thombre, J., in Writ Petition No. 4247/2024 (Chaya wd/o Durgesh Katre v. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division and others): The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia passed an order dated 16.11.2023 affecting the petitioner without issuing any notice to her; the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division dismissed the petitioner's appeal by order dated 16.02.2024 after affording a hearing. Respondents relied on Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557 to contend natural justice was satisfied. The Court accepted the Apex Court's proposition but held that when the appointment was issued in favour of the incumbent-employee, the CEO was bound to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, which was not done; consequently the Authority failed to follow natural justice. Both the CEO's order and the Divisional Commissioner's order were quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded to the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Gondia to hear the petitioner and respondents and pass a fresh order within two months. Petition disposed of.

wp4247.2024.odt 1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

Writ Petition No. 4247/2024

Chaya wd/o Durgesh Katre Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and others

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

Mr. Tariq Mohd Zaheer, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H.R.Dhumale, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Meghna Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. A.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.4.

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 16-10-2025.

Heard Mr. Tariq Mohd. Zaheer, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. H.R.Dhumale, learned AGP for respondent no.1, Ms. Meghna Munshi, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. A.R.Deshpande, learned counsel/AGP for respondent no.4.

The petitioner contended that the learned CEO has passed the impugned order dated 16^th November, 2023 without issuing notice to the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that against the impugned order passed by CEO, the present petitioner has filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show that the principle of natural justice was not followed. In support of his submission, the counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Canara Bank and otherers Vs. Debasis Das and others : (2003) 4 SCC 557.

There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above case, but the issue remains unanswered that when the appointment was issued in favour of incumbent-employee, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent-CEO to give an opportunity of hearing to her which was not done by the Authority. Therefore, the Authority has not followed principle of natural justice.

It was submitted on behalf of respondent no.4 that pursuant to the order passed by CEO, the petitioner was already working with the Zilla Parishad. In view of this fact, it is not proper to remove the respondent no.4 till the CEO decides the case of the petitioner afresh on its own merits.

Therefore, I am inclined to allow the petition. The order dated 16.11.2023 passed by the Chief Executive Officer and the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, to hear the petitioner and respondents and thereafter pass an order within a period of two months from today.

In view thereof, the petition stands disposed of.

(Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J)

mukund ambulkar

Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/10/2025 20:14:30